IBJNews

Duke Energy seeks delay in CEO-switch testimony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Duke Energy Corp. asked state regulators Tuesday for a weekslong postponement of testimony by two top directors about the surprise CEO switch at the top of America's largest electric company.

The North Carolina Utilities Commission last week ordered Duke Energy board members Michael Browning of Indianapolis and Ann Maynard Grey of Stamford, Conn., to testify on Friday.

Longtime local businessman Browning has been director of Duke and its predecessor utilities in Indiana and Ohio since 1990. The chairman of Browning Investments Inc. is a member of the Central Indiana Business Hall of Fame.

State regulators say they want to know whether they were misled in approving Charlotte-based Duke Energy's takeover of Raleigh, N.C.-based Progress Energy with the understanding that Progress CEO Bill Johnson would lead the combined company. Corporate directors had privately discussed changing that arrangement weeks before the commission's June 29 approval cleared the last major hurdle to the deal.

Johnson was dumped within hours after the merger closed July 2. Pre-merger Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers regained his job atop the company that now serves more than 7 million customers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and Florida.

Duke Energy told the commission that any testimony Friday would be unfairly soon for Grey and Browning. It added that the regulatory body doesn't have the authority to subpoena out-of-state residents. Both directors are willing to appear after Duke Energy produces documents that regulators want by the end of the month, the company added.

In an accompanying statement, Grey said she believes the commission's "line of inquiry is unwarranted."

"I respectfully request that the commission accept the decision that the board has made, even if the commission disagrees with it, and allow Duke to move forward," Grey wrote. "I am concerned that the inquiries and investigations that have now been launched may delay Duke's ability to accomplish" the task of integrating the companies.

State law allows the commission to rescind or change its decision approving the merger. The regulatory board also approves electricity rate increase requests. Both Duke Energy and Progress Energy, which remain separate operating companies in the Carolinas, are expected to seek rate increases later this year.

Grey said she would not publicly discuss the reasons Duke Energy directors dropped Johnson unless required to do so by the commission, but emphasized that Rogers did not seek out the chief executive job.

Rogers testified last week that directors told him they were disappointed with Johnson's authoritarian-seeming style, his handling of ongoing problems with Progress Energy's closed Crystal River nuclear plant in Florida and the company's financial performance.

Johnson has not responded to the criticism, in part because one of the conditions of his separation agreement is that neither he nor Duke Energy speak ill of the other. Johnson leaves the company with nearly $45 million in severance, pension benefits, deferred compensation, and stock awards.

But legal proceedings are an exception, meaning that Johnson could offer his version of events when he testifies under oath to the utilities commission Thursday. His testimony will be followed by with two former members of Progress Energy's board of directors who joined Duke Energy's board.

Also Tuesday, a Duke Energy shareholder filed a lawsuit alleging company directors hurt investors by misleading North Carolina regulators about who the CEO would be.

The lawsuit filed in a Delaware court by Alabama shareholder Lesley Rupp contends Duke Energy's directors engaged in a bad business practice by appointing and dumping Johnson within hours after the merger closed. The lawsuit contends the CEO surprise antagonized regulators who set electricity rates worth billions of dollars in annual revenues.

Duke Energy says the lawsuit lacks merit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
thisissue1-092914.jpg 092914

Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Cramer agrees...says don't buy it and sell it if you own it! Their "pay to play" cost is this issue. As long as they charge customers, they never will attain the critical mass needed to be a successful on company...Jim Cramer quote.

  2. My responses to some of the comments would include the following: 1. Our offer which included the forgiveness of debt (this is an immediate forgiveness and is not "spread over many years")represents debt that due to a reduction of interest rates in the economy arguably represents consideration together with the cash component of our offer that exceeds the $2.1 million apparently offered by another party. 2. The previous $2.1 million cash offer that was turned down by the CRC would have netted the CRC substantially less than $2.1 million. As a result even in hindsight the CRC was wise in turning down that offer. 3. With regard to "concerned Carmelite's" discussion of the previous financing Pedcor gave up $16.5 million in City debt in addition to the conveyance of the garage (appraised at $13 million)in exchange for the $22.5 million cash and debt obligations. The local media never discussed the $16.5 million in debt that we gave up which would show that we gave $29.5 million in value for the $23.5 million. 4.Pedcor would have been much happier if Brian was still operating his Deli and only made this offer as we believe that we can redevelop the building into something that will be better for the City and City Center where both Pedcor the citizens of Carmel have a large investment. Bruce Cordingley, President, Pedcor

  3. I've been looking for news on Corner Bakery, too, but there doesn't seem to be any info out there. I prefer them over Panera and Paradise so can't wait to see where they'll be!

  4. WGN actually is two channels: 1. WGN Chicago, seen only in Chicago (and parts of Canada) - this station is one of the flagship CW affiliates. 2. WGN America - a nationwide cable channel that doesn't carry any CW programming, and doesn't have local affiliates. (In addition, as WGN is owned by Tribune, just like WTTV, WTTK, and WXIN, I can't imagine they would do anything to help WISH.) In Indianapolis, CW programming is already seen on WTTV 4 and WTTK 29, and when CBS takes over those stations' main channels, the CW will move to a sub channel, such as 4.2 or 4.3 and 29.2 or 29.3. TBS is only a cable channel these days and does not affiliate with local stations. WISH could move the MyNetwork affiliation from WNDY 23 to WISH 8, but I am beginning to think they may prefer to put together their own lineup of syndicated programming instead. While much of it would be "reruns" from broadcast or cable, that's pretty much what the MyNetwork does these days anyway. So since WISH has the choice, they may want to customize their lineup by choosing programs that they feel will garner better ratings in this market.

  5. The Pedcor debt is from the CRC paying ~$23M for the Pedcor's parking garage at City Center that is apprased at $13M. Why did we pay over the top money for a private businesses parking? What did we get out of it? Pedcor got free parking for their apartment and business tenants. Pedcor now gets another building for free that taxpayers have ~$3M tied up in. This is NOT a win win for taxpayers. It is just a win for Pedcor who contributes heavily to the Friends of Jim Brainard. The campaign reports are on the Hamilton County website. http://www2.hamiltoncounty.in.gov/publicdocs/Campaign%20Finance%20Images/defaultfiles.asp?ARG1=Campaign Finance Images&ARG2=/Brainard, Jim

ADVERTISEMENT